Religion vs. Science
Biology 103
2002 First Paper
On Serendip
Religion vs. Science
Laura Silvius
I grew up with the impression that science and religion were
incompatible. Maybe it was because I went to Catholic school, and my
religion teacher thought I was trying to be sarcastic when I asked
things like, "If the pope is infallible, why did he say that Galileo
was wrong about the sun being the center of the universe?". When she
answered, "Because the pope didn't know any better", I said, "Isn't he
supposed to know better if he's the pope?", and the teacher told me to
stop asking dumb questions and said we'd get into it later (which of
course we never did). So out of fear of flunking fifth grade religion
AND science, I adopted the policy that what was taught in Science class
applied only to science, and ditto for Religion.
Nine years later, I realize that maybe my questions weren't so dumb. Some people spend their lives trying to bring out the similarities between religion and science, while others spend their lives trying to tear the two apart. For my paper, I wanted to explore possible reasons why these two opposing sides have never been able to find common ground enough to unite upon (fade in War: Why Can't We Be Friends?).
One reason religion is unwilling to familiarize itself with science
because science offers simple, valid, irrefutable and, above all,
logical explanations for some of the "miracles" described in holy
books. The Nile, for example, is known to turn red when it is overgrown
with bacteria. Sorry, Moses. Carbon dating of fossils tells us that
there was life on this planet long before the estimated time of the
creation of Adam and Eve. Sorry, God. You can see where the religious
leaders might get a little worried that their congregations would begin
to fall away from the belief that an invisible man in the sky makes
miracles happen, if too many explanations which appeal to their more
rational way of thinking were to come up.
There are those, of course, who would argue that the Torah and the
Bible are not meant to be taken literally but figuratively; that Adam
and Eve are representative of all men and women, that the story of the
Creation in seven "days" it meant to be a more figurative term for a
longer amount of time (substitute the word "eon" for "day" in the
Creation story and you'll get what I mean). That's nice and all, but it
begs the question, where does the line between figurative and literal
translations end? For example, the story of Esther, which, as opposed
to some other stories in the Bible, is very specific when it comes to
times, dates, names and places - not only that, but the story is
historically supported as it is written. Should we apply the figurative
translation to something which is so obviously meant literally? Of
course not. So when does the figurative translation end and the literal
begin? This is one question which scientists and theologians still have
not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to.
Another difference which I have found between science and religion is
the definition of "truth". To the scientist, who is more skeptical,
truth is ever-changing - the more one sees of the world, the more
observations one makes, the closer one comes to the truth. In laymen's
terms, the truth is out there. It is the goal which may not ever be
attained, but that certainly won't stop the scientist from coming as
close as she can. The scientist does not define "truth" by what it is,
but rather by taking away the attributes which truth is not. In this
manner, the definition of truth is always changing and never finalized.
The theologian, on the other hand, defines truth as that which is
printed in the Holy Texts, that which comes from the mouth of God
Himself (although personally I believe that if there IS a god, she
would have to be a woman, but that's another paper topic). Truth is
absolute, definitive, unchanging and final. You can see the truth,
touch it, feel it.
Although there are undeniably many differences between the issues
encompassed by science and religion, few people ever take the time to
realize how similar in nature the two really are. Think about it - both
science and religion have their own set of books from whence all their
information is drawn, instructors (if the professor will forgive me for
comparing him to a pastor), philosophies of life and death,
instructions and jargon. It's actually a little creepy to think of how
similar these two spheres really are, for science is a religion in and
of itself, and religion is a type of science. Both are learned
practices; no one is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine
just as no one is born with an automatic knowledge of biochemistry.
Perhaps the reason why these two fields can never seem to quite get
along is because they are too similar in their nature while being
dissimilar in their specific outlooks.
Science and religion are related to each other in ways both strange and
familiar - for example, we can imagine that there are people raised in
religious backgrounds who find science to be more practical and logical
than the Invisible Man in the Sky, but what most people don't realize
is that a majority of scientists are religious, not atheists. My former
employer was a chemist, and I remember he said once that he and most of
the people he worked with found that their faith in religion is
strengthened by their work rather than diminished by it, for the detail
and intricate design which is found in science and nature led them to
believe that there has to be some divine power which holds the world
together in the delicate balance in which it exists (Dr. Don Jones, San
Bernardino, California).
Although this paper is only a small portion of the massive study which ensues on the comparison between religion and science, I hope that I have put a new spin on the comparison, for I would hate to have written anything too hackneyed and be considered unoriginal. I hope perhaps to continue the comparison in a later paper.
|
12/07/2005, from a Reader on the Web In the Bible, God is the Great I AM; meaning, HE/SHE/IT exists whether you (or anyone) believe so or not. (And gender is irrelevant) So, too bad for you, not for God. Also, to answer your long-pondered childhood question, you must first understand that religion and God are not one in the same. Religion is fallible, God is not. Popes are fallible. Religion, like school, is meant as a tool for learning and understanding; this does not mean that the values of a certain religions are the end-all, be-all of truth. Like any establishment, there are inevitable selfish politics and bureaucracy involved. As far as science goes, the Pope was not the only one who believed the world was the center of the universe--it is just the same as the belief that no species alien to our own exists; it is the self-centered nature of humankind that makes us fallible. And the denial of God is just as selfish--we don't want to be responsible for our actions. We all will be, though, like it or not. May God bless you regardless.
|
An argument that people make in the defence of heaven is that "Well what about all the energy that is your soul, it has to go somewhere."
Infact this is true. The sould is a series of Electro-Chemical signals in the brain that define our perosnalities, and when we die they do go somewhere... In the ground, just along with the rest of our bodies. Energy converts in to heat, which is then defused throughout the atmosphere. The human soul is nothing more than a fairy tale ... Michael, 28 March 2006
Well written paper i must say. The guy before me is a bible hugger who obviously has no sense of logic in his body.. why would you just believe something placed before you, without even questioning it?? anything and everything can be proven by logic and reasoning, you're "god".. well haha thats just a joke. I believe everyone should believe in themselves and keep an open mind, dont shut ideas down because they offend you're religion ... Kyle, 15 April 2006
Science vs. Religion is an interesting subject. Everyday something explained in the bible as god's work has found another solution. An interesting thing about evolution is that it is one of the few things in the bible not recorded by man. Not many people realize this. There needs to be a neutral faith between science and religion ... Jake, 24 September 2006
Honestly i think you are on the right way to find the logics of life. GOD ? wtf is that? Indeed a made man convention for unexplained (till then) questions... Believe in science, believe in logics, believe in yourself...Just because we don't have a god ruling us does it mean we are fallible? c'mon... :S ... Rui, 30 September 2006
no matter how much you try to justify that god is the almighty PROTECTOR never the less open your eyes if god is so great then tell me how he can let people die over him. Also answer me this, how every religion says that god loves them the most and that they are the most worthy of his love and that they are gods children then tell me how if god is the one who is trying to restore peace to the then how come there are more wars and more blood shed by religious people who say that they are gods children then any scientist fighting a war over their inventions. God is NOT real or he would never of let his people fight over him in that way ... Franco, 7 December 2006
In response to the Religion vs. Science paper, I would like to point out that religion does not necessarily set forth the irrefutability of the words themselves in a holy book, but of the message that it contains; thus religion, like science, is the search for the truth that is out there. As the writer points out, science and religion are not so separated as many would like to believe.
In response to the response, I'd like to point out that the assertion that 'He/She/It exists whether you believe or not' is hardly irrefutable, and should be backed up with an argument to support it; additionally, denying the existance of God might mean that we will not be HELD responsible for our actions by a higher being, but does it not also mean that we are intrinsically MORE responsible for our actions, in that there is no creator to blame for 'making us the way we are'? ... Istadan, 24 April 2007
I was raised Catholic and told I must believe or I would go to Hell, by friends, priests and family members. Even as a child I did not believe that was true. I have thought about the Catholic teachings today and I cannot concieve them to be truthful or logical (that doesnt mean they're wrong). I'm now agnostic because I believe it is the most humble belief and the most truthful. Like Darwin said "...the whole subject of God is beyond the scope of mans intellect". All I know for certain is that physics governs the universe, whether or not a higher power had a hand in it is up to your beliefs. I'm trying not to sound pessimistic but every religion I've studied is just writings in books to me, nothing tangible. I respect everybodies beliefs including atheists because as we know it there are no right or wrong anwsers in religion ... Craig Mcauliff, 31 May 2007
Actually, the pope was right. Galileo's theory of the sun being the centre of hte universe is not true and visual gravitational evidence from Hubble proves this. It is the centre of our solar system, but other galaxies such as Andromeda etc do not orbit our sun ... Julia, 24 June 2007
Greetings, My name is Larry Thomas and I am currently writing to you from Wiesbaden, Germany. I am currently looking for someone within the religious and the academic community to review several works that I have put together on a site listed in this email. The total work itself is a combination of several fields such as,Philosophy, Neurology,Theology, Cosmology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Astronomy, Religion, History, etc... just to name a few in advance. I only ask those who are willing to review this work so that if any are kind enough to offer feedback to some of the theories contained within it then, it would be appreciated. The written work is posted on a free website which has its annoying ADs, so pop-up blockers should be set at max on your web-browser to avoid them. The address of the material is posted at www.ascensionq.20fr.com or it can be Googled under the title "Ascension Q" ... Larry Thomas, 24 November 2007
I wrote a post and then read
I wrote a post and then read some more that I thought were very interesting and worth responding to. Again I reiterate that science makes no claims on absolute truth where as religion does make that claim. Science in its very nature admits its flaws by its dynamism and the fact that scientific theory is changeable. I believe that the majority of scientists have open minds, in that if you prove that a god exists to them they would then believe. I know I would.
A lot of the arguments made in the comments for creationism for example neglect the concept of time and don't take into account the very premise of evolutionary theory.... which is that "over time." The earth has existed for millions of years, religious theory for thousands, modern scientific theory for maybe a few hundred. How can Science of the last few hundred years prove millions of years worth of occurrences instantaneously and why would we expect it to do so irrefutably in a few hundred years and then discount its ability to do so over time when it has shown so much in such a short period of time. Again most arguments against science are asking for irrefutable proof and absolute truth. Where as religion and gods existence is apparently an unquestionable absolute truth. Do you then not see the difference required in the burden of proof?
Science has shown and proven that many religious beliefs which were in fact taken as absolutes truths false over time. As believers then I ask do you then require science to prove that God does not exist until you raise the question that the possibility of his existence is not there? So the burden of proof then is 100% on science to explain the possibility of his non existence and not at all on religion to provide an argument for God's existence, when in fact it is religion which claims his existence as absolute.
Where did the earth come from? Dust... particles... big bang? We don't know and can't prove it and have not been able to in the last few hundred years. The discoveries(not discounting one post which seemed to see scientific discovery as the invention of playstation or the television) over the last few hundred years and the advances of science lead me to rationally believe that there is a scientific explanation for a lot of things that we previously did not understand. And I for one would place my "faith" in that and not on a declaration of absolute truth, like the existence of god. Maybe the real argument goes back to what came first the chicken or the egg ie: did god create man or did man create god. We know for a fact that any gods existence was first recorded by man and that most of the old religions, pre-christian, were in fact created to explain things as simple as weather patterns, the sun, earthquakes, floods, droughts, fire, water, etc..... Which we now know irrefutably where they came from.
This leads me to believe that in fact man did create god and that religion's only real dynamic feature is to increasingly expand science's burden of proof further away from its original espoused beliefs.
We create ourselves....
Is it not true, that when we are born we are quite like a clean slate that is then filled with information that makes us who we are? My partners mother suffers from dementia and it's getting worse. This is the opposite of being born and gaining information. Where is her mind going? It got me thinking that we are only who we are by living life, and are we this by nurture or nature? I would love to hear your thoughts...slightly off the point but I can't stop thinking about it all....
It's scary to think we are created by living life and merely evolving by what's around us. I want to believe in God, but my mind is so logical and I feel I am questioning everything...
religion vs science
i am a roman catholic, i would mainly like to address the issue of 'if there is a god why does'nt he stop illnesses, tsunamis, wars, etc.
if there was no evil in the world, would'nt it be easy 2 believe in god,i believe that god has put good and evil infront of us 2 choose our own path. we have free will.when the holyest of people lose family members, they may question god.but did anyone ever think that god is challenging us in this life. The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.maybe he challenges his most faithful the hardest.
let me give u an example,lets say there is a man who goes to mass every week, lives a holy life.he lives in a perfect world where no violence, wars, disease etc.some may say he is faithful in god,who wudnt be, it a perfect word, no evil
now lets say the mans family dies, and wars start, etc.There is evil in the world.maybe this is god showing us good and evil, this may be where we choose 2 show or dont show faith.there would be no challenge to life if life was all good and no evil. so to answer the questin, maybe god is challenging us,and giving us free will 2 react...
now ther is obviously no evidence to suggest this is right or wrong,but it is just away of looking at the violence in the world................please read link http://www.zootle.net/afda/religion-vs-science.shtml ....it shows that science aint all that correct. very interesting.by the way i believe in religion and science to be real.its not one or the other
what father/creator would
what father/creator would put give such challenges to his children? to see his children suffer- what about the innocent ones who suffer? this is a junk argument
Well..
I think Science and Religion are two different codes that try to give what we want: explanations.
It's like PS3 and Wii, both give what we want (that is entertainment, passing time, and socialization in the long-run) but 1. they have different games that have completely different experiences (major ones, NOT movie adaptation stuff) and 2. they are NEVER compatible to each other. Many people would argue for PS3 because of its better graphics, great games, and superior system overall (Science's rationality, reasoning and infallibility would go here) but people enjoy Wii as well because of its family-friendly, easily compatible (Read Wii Game Store), and aimed-at-general-audience nature (Religion's simple rules, flexibility {I think..}, and non-ethnic restrictions {I think..} would go here).. However, overall, PS3 wins general audience (logical and/or knowledgeable people), because this generation are striving more more technologically advanced stuff (Placing necessity in technology and, generally, logic)... It's not bad to act/think that way, but one should know why people still insist on/enjoy Wii (Evidence of religion throughout the world)...
Both atheists and devouts(or extremists) are butting their heads together on LOGICAL ground for the existence of God (with atheists putting devouts to the ground right now). Well, people, religion and science are two different concepts that can NEVER be conjoined for one reason or another. Since, it is impossible to make two concepts equal, it is inevitably losing game that religious people picked on.
However, we should know that there are sometimes grey areas when we are trying to explain things. Maybe this paper about religion and science being similar to each other will bring new light on things or maybe it will become another battleground for atheists and devouts. I don't know about you, but I REALLY don' want to see latter case becomes true.
Anyone who wants to comment/refute/support my opinion, PLEASE do but logically.
Easy way to answer questions.
I went to a catholic school my whole life and was forced to take religion courses. The stories that I've learned in the Bible makes me feel that it's an easy way to answer questions related to the world and how things were developed and made. Eg. The seven days of creation, God some how put light on earth on the first day. Second day he did the seperation of the waters etc.........PLEASE!........ Think again, is there proof behind those theories that God all of a sudden put light on earth the first day.....no.
But if you look at theories in a scientific way there is proof behind it, and again we don't know EVERY thing that went on in this world, but we do know that there is enough evidence when it comes to science to say that things evolved. Such as evolution, humans still are changing.
According to religion we have a soul when we die, I can't say for sure because I havn't researched deep into this topic, but I personallly think that forsure we do not have a soul when we die, things do give off some type of energy, when the human body dies the closes thing that's comes to a spirit or soul, is some type of energy that is given off a dead body.
I also realized how much religion takes in money, and the thing is religion doesn't pay taxes, and they always need MORE money. Wow I wish people realize that religion is taking in money that can go to things more meaningful in this world, such as school and edcation.
And again we all have our own opinions, so to the people who believe and have faith in (an invisible) man don't take it personally. ;)
iiinteresting...
I'm also a 16 year old student, except I'm studying for my A level Philosophy and Ethics, my coursework peice is on religion and science. The only problem I really feel i have with it is the title, it's like i'm forced to choose which one I think is right, when I think in some different aspects neither really have the right answer on the whole.
Religion created the basis for more laws and a sense of social morality that fit in with those times. Science came along and tried to provide an alternative explaination for things for those that didn't accept the idea of a God. Either way both tries to make the shoe fit for people to apply for everyday life.
Frankly I think both are highly flawed at the best and worst of times, i totally agree when people say both are some form of sciptual teachings in their own right, except the one that's been around for longer has lots of other interpretations that branch out in comparison to the late rise of modern science in the 16th century. I try and keep open minded about most things, because i think right now the humaan race is too closed minded to be able to grasp just what this world is probably capable of.
Humans need to feel like part of a group, lots of sociological and psychological studies have shown this, so it's only natural that something like the bible or (dare I mix the two?) something like Tarot cards are so vague, I'm a frequent user of the latter for fun but it's so that people can apply all this to their everday lives, because so much of it's up for debate. Take everything with a pinch of salt and try not to get too over your head really.
I throw into the mix some of my favourite quotes and where they're from for you to ponder on.
Dogma: "You have a problem with Catholicism?"
"I have a problem with any religion who treats their faith as a burden. You mourn your religion when you should celebrate it."
(No offence meant here at all, but to me (correct me if I'm wrong here) Catholism and a lot of fundamentalism comes across as a lot of negativity, like: you can't do this this or this
why not?
because it's a sin
-____-)
From diskworld by Terry Pratchett
Death: people simply don't see what they don't want to see.
And the only thing I view as totally true in this world:
A quote from dear old Alanis Morisette - One Hand in my Pocket
"And what it all boils down to
Is that no one's really got it figured out just yet"
I leave you on this thought, it's a totally ambigous statement, but; if God is a transcendant being...then doesn't that also mean that we've most likely judged (in our own imperfection), and interpreted a lot of things about him totally wrongly? What if everything we thought we knew about the God of classical theism is down to poor interpretation?
How do you think we'd all cope if he appeared and finally asked us:
"What the hell are you guys doing, seriously?"
O__< scary thought...
Science vs religion
I pity those who talk and talk. I pity those who accuse, I pity those who have no common sense of knowledge and should reconsider their thinkings and look at their IQ score and then be more sensible, because I can't stand the fact of how many stupid people there are in this world. It takes less than a rock to understand that this is all common sense to believe that god exist or not. Why people discuss this still today is because it has been going on and on.
How about we say that:
1.There are different countries, different religion, different believes. How do you think the god that didn't allow women to show their faces was created? It was not by a god, It was the Tali ban and it would make sense because of facts that clearly states that they came afterwards and made the changes, not god... The people who made these rules should rot in hell but there is no hell to rot in so therefore we have to reconsider this yet again. Is this a word we use all to many times or not?
2.I think that evolution makes sense but if god really exist I am going to apologies a lot for making common sense to many people that read this. I apologies for the English, it's not the first language I speak, but this should clear your such called, "brain" and make sense to your such called, "brain cells". Good luck with your future in the believes of something pure and holy. A place called after life would actually be nice, unfortunately all I can do is believe in it but at the same time criticize it.
3.What made us believe in this? How come god has not shown up? It has gone quite a while since "Jesus" didn't come back down. Yet those who don't believe in Jesus but believes in god, which is pathetic, because it's clear they got not enough knowledge to see the difference between reality and a bedtime story.
How to make people get that evolution is real or not
4.Time is what matters to make peoples mind clear. It is said that it took about 1600 years to create the bible. I have to say, it is hard enough to read 10 pages without getting completely brainwashed. The question is, why would people bother to be against the Jews? It was said in the bible that they would be punished etc. Are people that Fucked up in the mind to follow what god has said? Or is it god that punishes the Jews? I mean come on, should we suffer for "Adam and Eva's mistake with the snake who "talked" and managed to fool one of them to eat an apple from a tree.............. Therefore we should be punished and live in this realistic world where snakes cannot talk and where animals eat each other etc. Seriously it's like saying, a wild imagination could fool most people of the world, why? Well we need to develop a bit further to answer that question.
5.Hope you did not take this offensively, I am doing a topic article research for my science project on this matter. Hope you think my message did go through.
6.Think positively, a 16 year old male person, wrote this clear as it gets and made a good
statement which I never thought about earlier...
7.Don't bother saying that god exist because he/she does, I want evidence like t seeing him/her and talk about his/hers inspiration on the idea behind the bible. Than I would believe you. Even though I wrote if he now exist than all I can do is to believe but at the same time criticize him, because he/she said all you need to do is to believe, thats fine by me. Meaning no real big deal arguing about it.
I agree
I really like the way you think. I would say something about religion and science but I can't arrange my thoughts into words right now.
I find it surprising that in
I find it surprising that in discussing the similarities between science and religion this point is generally missed out:
Science uses falsification whereby a scientific theory holds until it is disproved; if I saw a square circle then I am wrong to think that all circles are circular. If we are to be democratic, which I sometimes think we fail to be in a time when our knowledge advances without the help of a higher power daily, we should judge religion by the same standard. This means we should see any religious theory as potentially true until it is disproved. Of course many claim that we need to prove God exists to claim religion holds but why should this be necessary when it is not in science? It was accepted that the earth was fat until proved otherwise so why not accept that there is a God until proved otherwise.
The problem with people accepting this is that they see the counterarguments for the arguments that claim to prove God’s existence as a proof that he does not exist i.e. because a and b lead to d and a is wrong d must be wrong. This is not however the case just because a particular argument to prove something isn’t totally sound does not mean that there is no alternative argument that may be sound even if it has not yet been discovered. It could be that b and c lead to d instead of a and b. If this is allowed for science why isnt religion given the same respect especially as its theories have lasted much longer without being falsified.
Reply to I find it suprising that in
Alanna what is obviously flawed is your perception of scientific research. Scientific proof is not only about disproving negatives but about trying to prove positives. Your assumption is that any believed perception is an absolute truth until dis-proven.
You are saying in your own words that "Of course many claim that we need to prove God exists to claim religion holds but why should this be necessary when it is not in science? It was accepted that the earth was flat until proved otherwise so why not accept that there is a God until proved otherwise. This is not however the case just because a particular argument to prove something isn’t totally sound does not mean that there is no alternative argument that may be sound even if it has not yet been discovered. It could be that b and c lead to d instead of a and b. If this is allowed for science why isn't religion given the same respect especially as its theories have lasted much longer without being falsified." Here you are contradicting yourself by arguing in favor of alternatives and at the same time saying that god's existence is absolute until dis-proven.
Your case about the earth being flat assumes that the attempt was made to disprove the earth was flat and not to prove that in fact the earth was round. So your perception of science is based only on disproving. Would you then argue that all science is simply to disprove an absolute truth and only then should we question those truths. Science is in its nature dynamic and makes no claims on absolute truth.... where as religion does. That is the major difference between science and religion.
As far as the paper written its interesting and leads more to the debate over spiritualism versus science but I have one big point of contention. Just because the authors chemist friend believes in a higher power as do his colleagues this does not justify their belief that most scientists have the same beliefs. The vast majority of scientists in fact do not believe in a higher god like power.
Well written, alot of thought,effort, and time
I hope for everyone that dis-believes in God(Jesus Father), that for your sake he doesn't exist. Because, if he does, one day He might ask you why, you put so much time, effort, and thought into proving Him wrong. He may go on to ask, why you felt you needed to explain what He really meant in the Bible, while He felt it was well written, self explanatory, boy means boy, girl means girl... Maybe, you should take a couple of minutes, and think about what your going to say to him =0
Good luck to ya all!
I suggest the same to you if
I suggest the same to you if in fact you get to the pearly gates and find Mohamed, Kwaku Ananse(Giant Spider as believed by millions of Ghanaians), Buddha, Zeus or Jupiter(from the Ancient Greeks or Romans), Ra of the ancient Egyptians, Ganesha Bhairav or any of the other Hindu gods, or maybe Odin the ancient Norse god... or any of the other thousands of gods that exist to various people. All your statement does is question other's beliefs and assumes that you are right and others are wrong(hypocrisy in its most obscene form). More scary would be for you who believe in a god's existence being wrong for worshiping the wrong god. I would see god tell him I lead a good life and plead ignorance. What would you say if god turned out to be a giant spider or woman with multiple arms and an elephants head?
Interpretation
What makes us fundamentally human is the fact that we have a brain developed enough and an iq developed enough to Interpret. interpreting is what made us the most powerful animal on Earth. if we didn't interpret another way of using a stick, tools would never have been discovered. Because of how we are all different we all interpret things differently which is the main cause of our social evollution ie internet, money, buisness, globalisation, cures for diseases...etc. Just because it is written doesn't mean we all read it to mean the same thing - that's impossible. you might aswell tell us to be clones.
really different slant on evolution-creation/I.D. controversy
I am a Darwinian evolutionist but with a really different twist, I re-interpret the writings contained within what is called the Bible.
Here's a sample of the kind of studies I do, which strangely, is being rejected by the religious right but evolution-science is more tolerant of:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood
"man became a living 'soul’ " (Genesis 2:7):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth-dust/ground-primordial soup)
Adam/man was not initially a human being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which must have been a chimpanzee; somewhere along the line human beings caught the chimp as shown by recent human genome DNA mapping).
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (primate/mammal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something primates don’t have?
animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit
soul = mortal (of earth)
spirit = immortal (otherworldly, aura, transcendent, supernatural = God's image)
Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.' (Gen. 2:8)
It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human,and unless he had gained this other element, he could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.
If Mr. Darwin merely studied God's creation (nature) and told us what he saw there, wouldn't that make him God's advocate rather than God's enemy?
Religion and the Bible are 'not' the same things, if they were then the religious right wouldn'd disagree so vehemently with evolution.
Science vs Religion.. Not Sciecne vs God
Thanks Polyphemus08x, you have summed up how I think on this subject. Also I believe life is not a mere coincidence AKA big bang. For granted things like gravity, magnetism that as far as i know science has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt leave room for a creator. I believe religion is CONTROL with fear. I was raised christian and on the Bible, which in my opinion is a scary bedtime story used to control people. To sum up my opinion i believe in "Creation" and science to explain MOST things but not all, and not religion.
In the beginning.................
My own thought goes to the beginning of everything. If we are made of elements stated in the periodic table, how did the first element come about? Let's all agree that there was a "big bang" (explosion of gases), where did these gases come from? How about the energy that was supplied to power the explosion?
A friend of mine was joking around and he told this story;
One day a group of scientists told God that they have discovered the secret of how we humans were created and that as a matter of fact they are going to start creating humans from that day forward.
God told them to go ahead. The first scientist then reached down to the earth with a plastic bowl to scoop up some dirt which of course is an essential ingredient that God used to make the first man as recorded in the Bible. Instantly God smacked him hard at the back of his hands and said, "GO CREATE YOUR OWN DIRT FIRST".
In my own opinion, the greatest scientist ever is God himself. Over time he decides on what he wants to reveal to us. Then we say we have made a discovery or better still we come up with an invention. For example all the components that make up this laptop have been in existence as far back as 1950 and beyond. However at God's own time, which is very recent, the knowledge to make one was made available to humans and now a laptop is nothing more than a piece of equipment that we use on a daily basis without much thought about how complex it is.
There is no doubt in my mind that God (the ultimate scientist) is very proud of us his children when we demonstrate exceptional abilities by being creative and show forth our intelligence. Sometime in the nearest future, science and religion will come to see "eye to eye".
Science and Religion are saying the same story
The Wisdom of Truth
There is no doubt in my mind that intelligence in microorganisms (The God of Higher Being) creating an environment that could sustain life for all its creations of Living beings that live now and the ones that lived in history.
The interpretation of its meaning that began with spiritual beliefs in all religions is the children’s story version in a general overview of how life was created for our species to understand it. It is also the voice of wisdom from experience that gives instructions on encouraging healthy Human behavior that serve to protect us from ourselves and all others that we share this planet. Our emotions and our self awareness of them are still in its infancy stage of learning that self discipline and cooperation with our environment is important for our survival.
This is centered in the subconscious mind
Our emotional being
“The Child”
Science in all fields of research is the adult’s story version in the complexity of details of how life was created. The information is enormous in data for human comprehension.
This is centered in the conscious mind
Our Self Awareness
“The Adult”
Religions since early human civilization have warned us that by not living by the behavior guidelines that we are taught to us as sin, immoral acts from our spiritual faith will have severe consequences.
These work as a destructive mechanism to the health of the planet.
Science is also telling the same story that what we are doing in destructive behavior on a global scale to the planet will also produce severe consequences.
Our spiritual belief that tells us the rules for moral human behavior and scientific facts tells us why they should have been obeyed.
Religion and Science is the Truth of Creation of Life
Why can’t we all agree and save our planet’s future?
I am a Catholic, I went to a
I am a Catholic, I went to a Catholic School and was taught the Bible. Now Im older I am finding it hard to believe due to science. I really want to, but its getting harder.
The main thing that it making me think this is the story of Adam and Eve.
They started the Human race? No, the Human race evolved from apes.
Eve ate the Apple because a talking (Talking!!) snake told her to, and as a result made childbirth painfull for all Women?
How could it not hurt a Women by pushing a child's head through thier vaginal canal?, That's a huge change in the body in a relatively short period of time.
There is more, and unfortunatly it all makes me wonder.......
Just because apes looks
Just because apes looks almost like human. having feature like nose eyes and etc. why not say we're of the dinosaurs ? animals are animals. humans are humans. tell me have u seen an ape being the exact replica of humans? going to work drive cook get married and be civilised? excuse me. if you really think apes are the one that spread the human, tell me exactly how we change from an ape to human over time and then stop? why not change again? from human to aliens? and then say it all started with apes. but giving birth part is true though.
who says we won't change!,
who says we won't change!, are we not evolving all the time? - who knows what we will look like in 1 million years from now!
your are wrong in so many
your are wrong in so many places. don't be fooled by people like them. God is truth. there is no other way.
and yes there was a talking snake. it was satan. he could do more things than you imagine. he can still take any form he wants just to make you do something wrong.
don't be decieved.
one prime difference
"..won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can." -i like how you use she defying the stereotype of a male scientist.
you start of brilliantly by showing the differences (although your definition of 'religion' seems to entail only Christianity/Judaism. There are other religions in this world that wouldn't fit any of your arguments. Hinduism, Buddhism for instance). the problem with the literal and allegoric interpretation of religious texts was a brilliant point to make. but i feel that the arguments that you make about the similarities is pretty weak. but maybe you didn't want to make a strong point and keep it open for discussion.
Some of my views:
at the end, science and religion boils down to one question: where did the first thing to ever exist (dust/ sun /star for the scientists...god for the religious people) come from.
the most convincing argument i ve ever heard an atheist give is that since every matter has an antimatter.. they can combine to form nothing..hence if the reverse is true..nothing can give matter and antimatter. thus, you didn't need anything to form the world..except for a random chain of events ( whose probability equals nil.)
well all hope is not lost for the believer (in god) yet..they've counter argued by saying that the thing that the atheists label as 'nothing' is what they call God. So, at the end it boils down to one simple difference..how do you want to name the thing that started the 'creation'.
give me proof...
I have been looking for the truth for a long time...if what you say is true...could you give me the name and location of where the fossils were found. And could that lake really turn bloody when infested with bacteria??. And you said you were a biologist right? well can you help me out with this: How come universe just happened to happen( the big boom, or something like that)..and how did atoms come to exists?...they just appered with the explosion and just started to work? and...they haven't stopped since. And how did gravity, time and energy just decided to mix together?. Scientist say we know it all...and yet I don't know anybody smart enough to create a single hair of the millians we have on our heads. In fact we have tried to imitate the human body, which we did not create, stuff like computers( human brain), cameras(human eye and brain), etc. And quite frankly my body does not seem like something that would just happen...there are just so many things that make it extremely complex, just think it took years to make the first human heart. I just want to know why we are here...because so far everething in this world has a purpose...how come you guys say we dont?...maybe God really exist...creation has created so many questions but has answered each and everyone of them...evolution only creates question after question, many of whom are still not answered.......help please!
Good thread...
Well written Paper Laura, and great posts everyone. A lot of different viewpoints written out by some articulate and perceptive people. It's funny how everyone's views differ slightly no matter how closely they resemble each other. In the last few hundred years religious people and their respective denominations of churches have become a bit more level headed and open minded; talk like this used to get people burned as heretics. We exist now in a time of science, where people know the world is "round" not because it's common opinion touted by the well-educated, but because there's multi-million dollar satellites in earth's orbit capable of taking HD photos of individual blades of grass. As such Religion has had to grow up and change in the face of emerging theories.
In my honest opinion, having either a strictly religious or a purely scientistic view of reality is a basically flawed position. There are unanswered and extremely important questions on both sides of the fence, and anyone who claims to have an truly informed opinion on the empirical veracity of either one is ignoring some pretty major inconsistencies. Both come down to a simple choice: can you relinquish your mind's need to substantiate facts with hard evidence, or do you believe only in what is finite, measurably and fills some volume in what's referred to as time-space. Put more simply, can you have faith or do you need proof?
In my experience religious people take much more on faith. Many are quite content to let things rest by stating (perhaps wisely) that God has a plan and that He is primarily and immeasurably Good and Just. Anything else is wasted thought, why question what you hold through faith to be true? Conversely, people basing their "faith" on science neglect the questions which science has not found(and I believe cannot find) the answers to: for example, what is rational thought and self-awareness, what is morality and why are we affected (or plagued) by it, or on a bigger scale, where did all matter in the universe originate. Of course thought and emotion are measurable phenomena and it's true that our brains carry out these instructions. But where does the feeling originate? It's true that everything we've found in the universe shares the same composite materials, but where did it all COME from?
A Christian might say that it was all created by God. But what is God? Is it a being? Does it reside somewhere in the depths of space? Or is there some alternate reality that exists alongside our own, one in which time doesn't exist and the governing laws of the universe don't apply? And if so, what is the meaning of our reality, of our very existence? Add to this the search for life in the rest of the universe. Am I to believe that in a universe that's quite possibly infinite there is nothing else but floating rocks? No life exists anywhere else? And if it does, why doesn't the Bible make any mention of it? And then there's the historical angle. If the world was created with human beings already fully "evolved", then were they alive during the time of the dinosaurs? Why do we dig up fossils of giant reptilian beasts from the Cretaceous Period but no humans? And more to the point why, if carnivorous instincts weren't originally built into the animals in the Garden of Eden (as evidenced in the Bible a few times) did a Tyrannosaurus have jaw musculature perfectly suited for ripping flesh from bone, and why were its teeth naturally serrated to more efficiently cut through meat?
An atheistic scientist on the other hand would have to concede, I imagine, that the universe (by which I mean all the matter in the universe) has always been and will always be. To cope with the immediate feeling of helplessness and infinitesimal worth in the scheme of fourteen billion years of continued existence he/she would adopt perhaps and existentialist outlook, or an agnostic/realist one. To cope with the inconsistencies of the evolutionary theory and the meager evidence of the big bang theory (of which I am a believer) he/she would have to make allowances in the area that science is as yet imperfect and the answers to these questions are logically answerable in some way or another. And in the face of the essential meaninglessness of life as a whole, it becomes the responsibility of each person to craft a meaning for their own place in the world.
I believe that the entire root of existence is the perception of time, and that the universe by humanity's very existence is subject to its laws. The "Garden of Eden" was a verbal rendering of the state of the earth, before self-realization was introduced and with it time and guilt, which is a byproduct of retrospect. Before original sin, there was no sin in my own estimation. The fruit eaten by "Eve" and then "Adam" was an "apple" picked from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. "We" (I don't think I was there) rebelled against God by giving ourselves the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, thereby creating Good and Evil. And this is my biggest gripe with religion at the moment; that if we had no concept of right and wrong before the fall, how are we guilty of original sin? My other main gripe is that the God that I read about in the Old Testament doesn't seem like an all-knowing benevolent and loving savior, but more like an overzealous, overbearing, tyrannical and brutal egocentrist.
The answers to the overriding questions of existence are as plentiful as they are subjective, and holding to one and ignoring all others is the very definition of narrow-minded. If it turns out that my unwillingness to subscribe fully to a world view that I don't completely understand condemns me in God's eyes, then I guess I'm just a fool to the core. But in my opinion no view can ever be fully understood by a single person, and as Mr. Mcauliff quoted Darwin to have said, "...the whole subject of God is beyond the scope of man's intellect." It's my view that no matter if someone believes basically in Science or in Religion as the sole explanation of creation, many things will have to be taken on faith. Science is no closer to discovering the meaning of existence than the Bible is to painting a suitably concise picture of human history and the advancement and evolution of its various cultures. No physical evidence exists to prove Heaven or Hell exist in the same way that no irrefutable evidence exists to prove man evolved from microbacteria in the still-forming earth's new-formed oceans. At some level, everything must be taken on faith.
Sorry for the long-winded post, it's 4am and I'm wide awake... cheers.
assaulting is a very strong
assaulting is a very strong word wouldnt you think?? more of a debate no one will come to the conclusion of whats righ and whats wrong. priorites are leading in the worng place right now. should people on this earth not think about peace and stop wars before figuring out whats right between science and religion. because of religion we have wars and will have wars just because greedy people think there superior. do you know how many religions there are? im guessing not. do you belive that your religion is supirior to another? science is just science religion is more then just one religion. so whos assaulting who? i think religion should get with the times here gods not going to save any one when some one presses a button to end man kind. it is words like that wich triggers conflict so your no better then any scientist that tried to proove evolution over creation.
Facts
The agreed-upon age of the universe and the earth itself has changed within the scientific community within the last twenty years (fact); nobody who wants to make sense within the religious world is claiming that we are built of anything other than the same elements that the stars are made of (fact); theories about the evolution of man are based largely off of tenuous evidence that is often taken for granted once its put onto a chart that shows a hairy man becoming more and more upright (fact); the Bible does not give a comprehensive timeline of human events and does not claim to (fact); and we are taking on "faith" most of the facts stated in the prior post (fact).
The thing most interesting to me to find out is how many people are going to assume that I'm a religious nut taking everything that fundamentalist Christian preachers thump out to be true. It may be important to note that I think that much of what has been said here is absolutely true. But while science is wonderful, the sort of thinking that it can lead to is just as dangerous and based on exclusiveness as religion; it's the same condition of humanity manifesting itself in two divergent places. After reading both Silvius' essay and the posts here, I think that both sides of this endless debate have forgotten that the central tenets of their beliefs has nothing to do with disregarding reason in favor of noise. Both science and religion are filled with breakdowns in thinking -- can anyone here think of an error that was ever made in their own field? For the Christians here, show some of that famous tolerance for all men; for the scientists, at least have a passing understanding of the thing you are assaulting.
The universe is 9-14 Billion
The universe is 9-14 Billion years old (fact), The earth is 4.6 Billion years old (fact), all life on earth is made of star dust (periodic table of elements)brought here by asteroids and comets (fact), life has been on earth for 3.8 billion years and there is no more "missing link" (fact). humans are 130,000 years old (fact; homo-erectus to homo-sapien). the bible approximates 10,000 years. Humans will keep evolving into something else (if they make it that long (fact)). And to think all this is here just for us is the definition of egocentric and selfish.
The difference between science and religion is science searches for evidence to prove its theories, and religion uses blind faith because there is no way to prove its theories (dont hold your breath waiting for rapture).
Lets say there is a heaven, it would be filled with extortionists, child abusers, dictators, murderers, son and so on (im sure they asked for forgivness at some point). Ill take my chances with oblivion.
Okay then..so your well read
Okay then..so your well read in science right? How about the philosophy of Science? Ever read into Popper,Hume or Kuhn??? All are scientists and philosophers of Science and all have provided theories that are infamous to all scientists to date (apart from your wonderful self obviously)...Science can carry on searching for evidence all that it likes, but nothing can ever be proven true or "fact"...ever.
Science can only prove if a theory is false or whether it can be falsified. You cannot see into the future to find out if results to an experiment will be the same tomorrow, next week or 10 million years from now. Therefore, the "fact" as you call it is not true, just not proven wrong yet. e.g, all objects denser than oxygen fall to the ground today, will they tomorrow? who knows. At this point I will remind you that Newton's theory was thought fact, until Einstein replaced this theory after proving him wrong. All scrince is, is a bunch of stuff we have proven incorrect.
So, Blind faith? the definition of scientists like yourselves who assume all facts will be exactly the same tomorrow and the rest of time. Also, very selfish.
As for heaven, don't even bother commenting, you obviosly haven't read the Bible, along with all the necessary documents for science. I think your middle names are "Blind faith" and "Ignorance" as you comment on issues you have absolutley no background in.
ummm
well, im a 15 year old girl who has no idea what life is or what i'm here for, but obviously im here for a reason. I do believe in god,(why else would i have life and be here) I mean think about it, what makes science work? yeah its there but what gives object mass and gravity and size? how were things ever created at all? i believe this answer is god, but there are some things that i don't believe.... i think religion is a form of selfishness, it's for teh betterment of ourselves isnt it? to make us get to heaven by being good to others? I think thats being good for the wrong reasons. My religion is a little bit hypocritical, i believe. Well look at how religions were created and seperated and all teh wars, its all to believe in the same basic thing, common morals, but different reasons for thesse morals. Maybe im disillusioned about everything, but im still young and inexperienced, i have a life to live cause do i really know what comes next?
Post new comment